I'm one of those weirdos that really likes the classics. Shakespeare, Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, Dickens - all the great wordsmiths fascinate me in a way that no other modern author has been able to manage (not even my favorite author, Brandon Sanderson). I've been wondering about this a lot lately. As a writer and aspiring wordsmith, I've spent a lot of time looking at the classics and wondering exactly what it is about them that's made them last so long and why we're still asked to read them. We've never been asked to read "Harry Potter" or "Way of Kings" for a literature class (but how cool would it be if we were?). Yet, continually, we are asked to revisit things like "Pride and Prejudice", "A Christmas Carol", and "Romeo and Juliet". Why? What is it about those stories that so greatly sets them apart from modern tales?

As I sat reading a Sherlock Holmes novel a few years back, a theory occurred to me.

There's something they had all those centuries ago that, though not lost, has been diluted in the modern age. That is, extended, daily, and constant human contact. There were no massive cinemas to wile away a couple hours with blaring noises and action back then. They had no clubs wherein rules were set down and you could barely see the person next to you because of the flashing lights. They didn't have the option of email or text to replace face-to-face conversations. Interaction back then was more intimate and personal. It had to be. They had no other option.

Not only that, but they must've gained their excitement from simpler methods. Forming new acquaintances, social interaction, and even wondering about the actions of their neighbors. I'll say again that this is something we haven't quite lost, but modern day culture had diluted it.

Human nature was more of a mystery back then, as opposed to today, when it's so easy to think we know everything. Perhaps it was from this mystery that fiction first arose. The classics explore the depths of every character in a way we've forgotten how to do today. Look at "A Christmas Carol". That whole novella is about Scrooge and his evolution from a selfish creature to a selfless man. I suspect that an author writing it today may've focused more on the mystery of the ghosts (who are they? Where did they come from? Are they formed through magic, science, or something else? etc.) rather than Scrooge's character. As romances, all of Jane Austen's novels are littered with individual characters that are rounded, complete, and each unique in their own way. And what about "Hamlet"? Take away his wholly individual persona and you barely have a plot anymore.

I could give you more examples, but let's cut to the chase and I'll give you my point right here. The classics explore human nature in a way we've forgotten how to do today. They don't answer all of our questions, but they pose new ones we haven't thought of before. Some of them were redefining. The best detective dramas today can be described as "Holmesian" but they're never as monumental as the original. Romances can be described as "worthy of Jane Austen", but they're never as authentic as hers. Poetry can be good, but never even comparable to Shakespeare.

I think they understood people better back then. Modern literature is entertaining and often skillfully crafted, but how many of them dare us to look a little deeper at the people around us?

If you don't believe what I'm saying, take a closer look next time you read a classic. You might be surprised.